Originally posted by no1marauderThere are negotiations with the intention of peace from both sides and then there are negotiations without peace intended by one side or both. How about the peace treaty signed between the USSR and Nazi Germany before the beginning of WWll? How about the treaty Chamberlin signed with Hitler before the beginning of WWll? Do you think these "peace" treatise were designed to bring peace or were disguised tools of aggression by a particular side? I say that if both sides had signed the peace treaty with the intent of peace, it would have been a lasting peace. I therefore stand by my claim that there is negotiation with the Islamo-fascists in terms of a lasting peace between Zionism and Islam.
A post ago you claimed the PLO position was "no negotiations". Do you ever admit you're wrong?
EDIT: whodey: I think the PLO adopted the same policy towards Israel as was initiated by their hero and that policy is no Zionist state will ever be acceptable in the Holy Land. There is no negotiation.
Originally posted by dottewellFor those of you who think I am being one-sided in my statements about the Islamo-fascists let me ask you one thing. If Hitler had died what would have changed? Who would have taken over the riegns? Perhaps a man like Heimler? Would this have been better? You say that since al-Hueissini and his nephew died that their struggle has also died. Is this a fair assumption? The Nazi movement died once there movement had been crushed in its entirety. Even after the end of the war there was an element of fanatic insurgency that continued to oppose the fact. Sound familiar?
And despite all the posturing and double-speak, the irrefutable fact is that he signed on the dotted line at Oslo.
Incidentally, Whodey, you might want to read the faqs and links on the site you posted. That should give you a clue as to its orientation.
I can't take seriously anyone who doesn't accept that there are questions to be asked about the behaviour of both sides.
Lets ponder one more question. If we were talking about Nazi Germany back in the late 1930's and I was bashing the fascists Nazi's like I am bashing the Islamo-fascists of today, would I be to one sided? Should I have also been pointing the finger at the Allied powers for their role in creating the monster of Nazism? Granted, there is culupability in creating Hitlers regime. The Allies could have prevented its progression and could have been fairer to the Germans after the end of WWl. Nevertheless, once Hitler and his cronies gained power, what then? Would I have been unfair in bashing them?
Originally posted by whodeyTrouble is, I think it likely you'd be supporting the fascists, not "bashing" them.
For those of you who think I am being one-sided in my statements about the Islamo-fascists let me ask you one thing. If Hitler had died what would have changed? Who would have taken over the riegns? Perhaps a man like Heimler? Would this have been better? You say that since al-Hueissini and his nephew died that their struggle has also died. Is this a f ...[text shortened]... nce Hitler and his cronies gained power, what then? Would I have been unfair in bashing them?
Originally posted by whodeyIt's another classic example of "our enemy's enemies are our friends."
I just watched a documentary on the History channel about the alliance between Hitler and and Islamic groups in the Middle East in the late 1930 to early 1940's. Apparently both hated the Jews and both agreed they should be destroyed. The other interest they shared was to destroy the British due to the fact that Britan occupied much of the Middle East durin ...[text shortened]... lers hinchmen. Has anyone else seen this on the History channel or heard about such facts?
History does not judge this sentiment very positively.
Originally posted by whodeyI think if you are going to use a term like "Islamo-fascist" you should use it carefully. Do you know anything about the political nature of the PLO before Arafat's radicalising influence? Do you know how Arafat's Fatah came to power, and what they stood for? And did you follow the recent elections by which Hamas came to a position of power in Palestine? What were the main issues then?
For those of you who think I am being one-sided in my statements about the Islamo-fascists let me ask you one thing. If Hitler had died what would have changed? Who would have taken over the riegns? Perhaps a man like Heimler? Would this have been better? You say that since al-Hueissini and his nephew died that their struggle has also died. Is this a f nce Hitler and his cronies gained power, what then? Would I have been unfair in bashing them?
Incidentally, I didn't mention al-Hueissini at all.
I'd like you to acknowledge and address the fact that Arafat signed up at Oslo. I'd also like to know what you think of the Israeli's rejection of the original Rogers Plan in the late 1960s - a plan which many people thought would lead to a lasting settlement.
The ironic thing is that because you lack any historical or political understanding of the complexity of the issue, you are in no position to assess the influence in recent years of a radical and highly political strain of Islam throughout the Middle East - an influence I would agree has been largely disturbing, and is likely to get worse the longer (a) GWB maintains his current attitude towards foreign policy and (b) no solution is found to the Israel-Palestine issue.
You don't see that this is a largely new phenomenon because you have made no effort to learn about the history of the Middle East from a wide range of sources. You'd rather just demonise "the other", because it's easier and suits your religious prejudices.
Originally posted by whodeyYou are welcome to bash Hitler and Co. all you want. Hitler oppressed and killed Jews and other minorities and invaded sovereign nations.
For those of you who think I am being one-sided in my statements about the Islamo-fascists let me ask you one thing. If Hitler had died what would have changed? Who would have taken over the riegns? Perhaps a man like Heimler? Would this have been better? You say that since al-Hueissini and his nephew died that their struggle has also died. Is this a f ...[text shortened]... nce Hitler and his cronies gained power, what then? Would I have been unfair in bashing them?
Palestinians have done what by comparison? Stood up for their right to live where they have always lived?
Yes, they have fought back. Are you saying they had no right -- no right to their lands, no right to their homes, no right to vote -- almost no right to exist? Is the very thing you say is unacceptable for Jews acceptable for Arabs? Why?
And when it comes to denying Israel's right to exist -- Golda Meir in 1969 denied that the Palestinians existed: "There was no such thing as Palestinians. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country from them. They did not exist." (Sunday Times, 15 June 1969)
The term Islamofascist is a slur, by the way -- pure and simple -- just as the term 'Judeo-Nazi' is a slur.
interesting that wikipedia does not even have a connection with islam ...
wiki stops spammers and fraudsters by: "Because of recent vandalism or other disruption, editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled. Such users may discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi#Religion
Religion
Hitler extended his rationalizations into a religious doctrine, underpinned by his criticism of traditional Catholicism. In particular, and closely related to Positive Christianity, Hitler objected to Catholicism's ungrounded and international character - that is, it did not pertain to an exclusive race and national culture. At the same time, and somewhat contradictorily, the Nazis combined elements of Germany's Lutheran community tradition with its Northern European, organic pagan past. Elements of militarism found their way into Hitler's own theology, as he preached that his was a "true" or "master" religion, because it would "create mastery" and avoid comforting lies. Those who preached love and tolerance, "in contravention to the facts", were said to be "slave" or "false" religions. The man who recognized these "truths", Hitler continued, was said to be a "natural leader", and those who denied it were said to be "natural slaves". "Slaves" – especially intelligent ones, he claimed – were always attempting to hinder their masters by promoting false religious and political doctrines.
Anti-clericalism can also be interpreted as part of Nazi ideology, simply because the new Nazi hierarchy was not about to let itself be overode by the power that the Church traditionally held. In Austria, clerics had a powerful role in politics and ultimately responded to the Vatican. Although a few exceptions exist, Christian persecution was primarily limited to those who refused to accommodate the new regime and yield to its power. The Nazis often used the church to justify their stance and included many Christian symbols in the Third Reich (Steigmann–Gall). A particularly poignant exemplar is the seen in the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.